Previous boards of the Bermuda Land Development Company were “delinquent” in their responsibilities, concludes the report of a review of the company by Ed Saunders and Leroy Bean.The report at the centre of conflict of interest allegations, obtained by The Royal Gazette, is dated April 2010 and contains a catalogue of questionable practices, anomalies and concern about the state of many of the Government owned company’s assets.It describes the Account Receivables department as the “most deficient” with almost $2.5 million of debts “allowed to accumulate over the years unchecked”.Of the 71 debtors, one of them owed $589,708.24.The report also notes a number of “anomalies” including:l The $20,000 purchase of a lawnmower which could have been bought and landed in Bermuda for $9,310.The new lawnmower sat unused in the landscapers shed for two months, according to the report, because the workers had been instructed not to use it until the supervisor returned from leave.l The company was billed $4,000 for the installation of metal doors when the going rate was between $650 and $800. No comparative pricing was done before the contract was awarded. Further, the report states, a consultant and not an employee commissioned the work.l Tenants occupying space they were not paying for, including one tenant who took up 4,000 sq ft of a building that was supposed to be empty, without the knowledge of the Director of Facilities. “The tenant was ordered to remove all of his belongings from the building within the next week.”l The reviewers estimated that another tenant was occupying 20,000 sq ft, even though he was only supposed to be leasing 7,250 sq ft. “This reflected gross negligence,” the report states. “If the company had been vigilant in doing their duties by policing the campus, leases and agreements, it would not find itself in this position.”l A host of tenants were getting 200 sq ft more than they paid for because “all the buildings in the Industrial Park drawings are incorrect. They are all recorded as 3,800 when in essence they are 4,000 sq ft.”One company quoted on the installation of 125 feet of fencing, poles and one 10ft gate but after investigating it was found that “there was no need for poles and there was only 40ft maximum fencing needed and repair for only one side of the gate,” according to the reviewers.“The CEO was questioned about this quote and advised that the work was exaggerated and needs to be resubmitted.“Also when asked who gave the company the specs for the job, no one knew who requested the quote for the work to be done at Sofar Lane.”Other concerns raised by the review involved outsourced security services.“The swipe card system is still not in place. Inquiries as to when it is to be installed are not clear. The security guards were found sleeping midmorning, consuming alcohol with the evidence clearly displayed on the front seat of the car and the security hut provided is not being used.”The review also found that some of its buildings had been neglected and in dire need of refurbishment. It noted that one cottage had been boarded up for five years and could be refurbished and rented out.The gymnasium used by the Bermuda Gymnastics Association needed repairs, it found.“The entire roof needs to be addressed, bleached and all leaks patched. Trees need to be removed from the roof and sides of the building, and three coats of Bermuda paint applied to the roof.” And the company had been told that the tenants’ calls had “gone unnoticed”.“These tenants, whether they are paying a peppercorn or one dollar, should be treated with respect.”The review also found that several buildings were in such a state that they had to be demolished. One was being used as a crack house, the report said.And, it says, a large house behind Carter House is in such a state that further deterioration would leave it “unsalvageable”. “There are organisations that would be interested in this building if at first it is made astatically (sic) appealing, it could attract tenants.”Another entry notes that the now defunct Club Azure building’s roof “needs to be addressed. The contents need to be disposed of and the general surroundings made attractive enough to attract interested potential tenants. These repairs would give it a better appeal.”“The Boards of the company were delinquent in carrying out their responsibilities in that they basically rubber stamped whatever was presented to them,” the report states in its conclusion.“Many projects were presented to the Board when they were either about to be concluded or were at a difficult stage of negotiations.”Examples of the board being kept in the dark about the company’s business include the state of the company accounts — “revealed with a full disclosure only when this new Board started to ask questions about the sizeable write-off.”The new board also became aware of a project at Marginal Wharf only “after prodding”.“The Board is to be apprised of all pending transactions, a listing of all potential developments, at what stage negotiations are at, and what the potential business impact will be on the company.”One of the report’s final recommendations is that the CEO be annually appraised by the Board “to prevent this type of delinquencies from ever happening again.” It also recommends that the CEO be monitored for six months but, it says, “this would entail the Chairman and Deputy Chairman spending two days every month as consultants to assure that the recommendations are carried out.“Also during this six month period, bi-weekly meetings will be scheduled between the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and the CEO.”And it concludes: “It has been observed that previous boards have not carried out their administrative tasks thus creating an environment that lacked the necessary checks and balances, which has left BLDC in its present state.”